Niall Gooch has a useful Critic piece on the political problem of petty scandals.
The problem with petty scandals
They distract us from state failure and institutional decay
Those of us who read too many detective stories probably have an unrealistically exalted view of barristers. With their razor-sharp minds, rapier wit, and quick thinking, the brilliant silks of fiction are rarely at a loss for words. It has, therefore, been a curious experience to observe Starmer KC over the last few weeks. The Prime Minister has been at the Bar since before I started school, and yet in interviews he appears flustered, ill-tempered, inarticulate, and bizarrely oblivious to how the public might view the Labour leadership’s apparent reliance on the beneficence of a single millionaire.
I might have more sympathy with Sir Keir, in his battle with political journalists focused on “sleaze” and procedural rigmarole rather than policy and outcomes, were it not for Labour’s relentless sanctimony about Tory misbehaviour, both perceived and actual. As it is, they have fed the beast of public censoriousness, cheering while it devoured their opponents, and so cannot expect much sympathy now it has turned to devour them too. Proverbs about living and dying by the sword come to mind, and even an old story about motes and beams.
The whole piece is worth reading because this conclusion does hit one nail on the head - petty scandals are an important tactic by which our main political parties compete with each other. Sir Keir Starmer KC has shown himself to be as keen on this tactic as anyone else.
Conclusion - lawyers are not particularly well suited to political life, being just as willing to make political use of petty scandals as any tabloid journalist.
One possible partial solution to the problem is that the main parties implement a kind of implicit non-aggression pact, whereby they all quietly agree to not exploit so-called “sleaze” allegations, unless there is genuinely disgraceful behaviour. This is wildly improbable, of course, not least because it is a prisoner’s dilemma-type situation where the first to defect from a mutually beneficial agreement gets an immediate selfish advantage. But it’s hard to see how else we might move towards a more constructive form of politics, laser-focused on national prosperity and revival rather than purse-lipped tutting about the excesses of The Other Lot. After all, I suspect that popular concern about “snouts in the trough” would abate considerably if everyone’s trough was getting much fuller.
One possible partial solution to the problem is that the main parties implement a kind of implicit non-aggression pact, whereby they all quietly agree to not exploit so-called “sleaze” allegations, unless there is genuinely disgraceful behaviour. This is wildly improbable, of course, not least because it is a prisoner’s dilemma-type situation where the first to defect from a mutually beneficial agreement gets an immediate selfish advantage. But it’s hard to see how else we might move towards a more constructive form of politics, laser-focused on national prosperity and revival rather than purse-lipped tutting about the excesses of The Other Lot. After all, I suspect that popular concern about “snouts in the trough” would abate considerably if everyone’s trough was getting much fuller.
No comments:
Post a Comment